Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Jeremy,

There may be features of Christianity as a religion that make it better adapted to survive and grow in the conditions that pertained in Europe over the last two millennia. It may not be purely happenstance.

For example, great emphasis is placed on proselytism. Go out and spread the word is a big message of Christianity. Also, Christianity is not a religion that is tolerant of other beliefs ("I am a jealous god" etc). These two facets alone make for a religion that spreads fast and displaces other beliefs. Then there's the fact that Christianity is a religion that discourages rebellion against the status quo (render unto Caesar etc). This makes it attractive as a tool for rulers. There were probably several religions that Constantine could have chosen to help mould his empire. Why did he choose Christianity? Probably because he knew he could use it.

Yep, I buy that to a degree. Had one of Christianity’s tenets been “kill all Romans” for example it’s unlikely it would have been selected by Constantine I to mollify the uppity locals. That’s not to say that any of its claims must also be true though, and we still have the evidence that it won for reasons that are nothing to do with the truth or non-truth of its claims – the propaganda campaign, victories in “holy” wars etc. Had any of these factors gone for the other side there’s no reason to think that Christianity wouldn’t have withered on the vine just as some competing faiths did.   

Vlad still seems lost in a world of “Christianity survived, therefore its claims must be true” bias despite the evidence that suggests he’s likely wrong about that.         

[jeremyp]

Hi Jeremy,

Yep, I buy that to a degree. Had one of Christianity’s tenets been “kill all Romans” for example it’s unlikely it would have been selected by Constantine I to mollify the uppity locals. That’s not to say that any of its claims must also be true though, and we still have the evidence that it won for reasons that are nothing to do with the truth or non-truth of its claims – the propaganda campaign, victories in “holy” wars etc. Had any of these factors gone for the other side there’s no reason to think that Christianity wouldn’t have withered on the vine just as some competing faiths did.   

Vlad still seems lost in a world of “Christianity survived, therefore its claims must be true” bias despite the evidence that suggests he’s likely wrong about that.       

Yes, just to be clear, the reasons I gave for why Christianity might be successful have nothing to do with truth. If that's Vlad's argument, he is on dangerous ground because it will only be a matter of time before somebody points out that, once you correct for Christianity's 600 year head start, Islam is much more successful (and therefore by Vlad's argument: much more true). Let's hope for Vlad's sake that nobody does that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Jeremy,

Yep, I buy that to a degree. Had one of Christianity’s tenets been “kill all Romans” for example it’s unlikely it would have been selected by Constantine I to mollify the uppity locals. That’s not to say that any of its claims must also be true though, and we still have the evidence that it won for reasons that are nothing to do with the truth or non-truth of its claims – the propaganda campaign, victories in “holy” wars etc. Had any of these factors gone for the other side there’s no reason to think that Christianity wouldn’t have withered on the vine just as some competing faiths did.   

Vlad still seems lost in a world of “Christianity survived, therefore its claims must be true” bias despite the evidence that suggests he’s likely wrong about that.       

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. It is you a few posts back that suggested Secular Humanism would survive because it was 'underpinned by reason'. That is not true now it seems. Jeremy seems to be superimposing the idea of success as a religion. I'm not sure what that has to do with survival.

I'm minded of the words of Jonathan Sacks who said If Christianity were true it would be true even if there weren't any adherents. But there is no judaism without Jews.I
think i've outlined why I think the Gospel is true without recourse to this silly argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Once again you are putting words in my mouth.

I’m doing no such thing (I leave that kind of thing to you).

It is you a few posts back that suggested Secular Humanism would survive because it was 'underpinned by reason'. That is not true now it seems.

Yes it is. The difference between faith claims and rationalism is the difference between subjective and objective. Try to grasp this.

Jeremy seems to be superimposing the idea of success as a religion. I'm not sure what that has to do with survival.

No, he’s saying that if some religions are better adapted than others (ie, they better suit the prevailing conditions) that would influence their chances of surviving. Thus if, say, the Romans are in charge and are at war with the Goths and one religion says “kill the Romans” and the other, “kill the Goths” they’ll likely endorse the latter. That though does not for one moment suggest that the various myths and miracle stories of the latter faith are more true than those of the former.

Again, try to grasp this – it’s what survivorship bias entails.     

I'm minded of the words of Jonathan Sacks who said If Christianity were true it would be true even if there weren't any adherents. But there is no judaism without Jews.I think…

That’s special pleading. If any faith is true then it’s true whether or not it has adherents.

i've outlined why I think the Gospel is true without recourse to this silly argument.

And I’ve explained to (several times in fact) why your arguments about this are wrong. Why won’t you at least try to address the rebuttals you’re given?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I’m doing no such thing (I leave that kind of thing to you).

Yes it is. The difference between faith claims and rationalism is the difference between subjective and objective. Try to grasp this.

Since we know it is hard to redirect a grown man from habitual bollock talk and survivor bias as the reason Christianity survived is a bit of a rabbit hole we should concentrate on your false equation between secular humanism and literal rationalism since secular humanism contains much that is not established by science. Now you may argue that SH is based on science I would argue that it is based on a moral philosophy. Certainly to say that rationalism = secular humanism=objective is misleading.

That and the fact that rationality does not necessarily mean survival rather undoes your argument.

As for your apparent incomprehension as to what Dr Sacks is meaning. In true new atheist style you turn your ignorance into authority.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since we know it is hard to redirect a grown man from habitual bollock talk and survivor bias as the reason Christianity survived is a bit of a rabbit hole we should concentrate on your false equation between secular humanism and literal rationalism since secular humanism contains much that is not established by science. Now you may argue that SH is based on science I would argue that it is based on a moral philosophy. Certainly to say that rationalism = secular humanism=objective is misleading.

That and the fact that rationality does not necessarily mean survival rather undoes your argument.

As for your apparent incomprehension as to what Dr Sacks is meaning. In true new atheist style you turn your ignorance into authority.

Fun as it may be for some to watch someone spit the dummy after losing the argument, I find it unedifying. For what it’s worth and to try to help you though:

1. “Secular” humanism is a tautology; it’s just “humanism”.

2. Humanism is rationalist in character. See here to put you straight:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism#:~:text=Secular%20humanism%2C%20often%20simply%20called,of%20morality%20and%20decision%20making

Note especially:

“Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many secular humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality.”

3. You cannot argue that a claim of fact (eg a resurrection) must be examined differently because it has a religious “context”. Either it happened or it didn’t, and you can't just retrofit different standards of evidence because the consequence would have special significance for you. To think otherwise is akin to my claiming that you fail to grasp that leprechauns leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbow because you’re not applying my leprechaunal context to the claim.

As you’ve failed again even to attempt to address the arguments that undo you though I guess I should know better by now a it’s a fool’s errand to try to educate the uneducable.

More fool me eh?           

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I am aware other Humanists are available.

2. Humanism is rationalist in character. See here to put you straight:

Apart from the empirical and moral aspects of which many are faith based eg the basically good belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism#:~:text=Secular%20humanism%2C%20often%20simply%20called,of%20morality%20and%20decision%20making

Note especially:



3. You cannot argue that a claim of fact (eg a resurrection) must be examined differently because it has a religious “context”. 

Not sure what you mean here.
A resurrection does not need a religious context to study it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not sure what you mean here.
A resurrection does not need a religious context to study it.

You were the one saying the claim should be considered with a "religious context", not me. You tell me what mean by it.

As for "the documents" at issue, they should be treated with the same tools and methods of historicity as any other. And when those tools and methods are applied, they fail - which is why the resurrection story isn't taught as a fact in academic history.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You were the one saying the claim should be considered with a "religious context", not me. You tell me what mean by it.

As for "the documents" at issue, they should be treated with the same tools and methods of historicity as any other. And when those tools and methods are applied, they fail - which is why the resurrection story isn't taught as a fact in academic history.

They don’t fail though the best answer, from the epistles is that people within living memory genuinely believed in a resurrection. The objections are rooted in it being unbelievable in a philosophically naturalist context.

Once that is clear, we all know where we stand.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

They don’t fail though…

Of course they do – that’s why they’re not taught in history lessons.

…the best answer, from the epistles is that people within living memory genuinely believed in a resurrection.

So?

The objections are rooted in it being unbelievable in a philosophically naturalist context.

Just as the objections to alchemy are rooted in the philosophical naturalism of chemistry, the objections to astrology are rooted in the philosophical naturalism of astronomy, and for that matter the objections to theism are rooted in the philosophical naturalism of philosophy.

Historicity entails naturalistic methods of verification. Your problem if you want to junk that is that you have no other method with which to replace it, and so you must also junk it for any other ancient miracle claim (which is when you always run way). 

Once that is clear, we all know where we stand.

Yes – you stand squarely with alchemy and with astrology. How does that help you? 

[jeremyp]

Since we know it is hard to redirect a grown man from habitual bollock talk

Oh yes, we know that very well.

As for your apparent incomprehension as to what Dr Sacks is meaning.

Yes, that really does seem like bollocks to me.

It seems to me that, if Judaism is true, it's still true even if the Jews are all gone, just like Christianity. By contrast, if all knowledge of either Christianity or Judaism were lost, there's no way they'd ever be rediscovered.

[ProfessorDavey]

They don’t fail though the best answer, from the epistles is that people within living memory genuinely believed in a resurrection.

Nope - wrong again. The earliest copies of the epistles are from hundreds of years after the purported resurrection, so all we can say for sure is that at that point we have evidence that people believed it - that's hardly hold the front page news is it Vlad.

And regardless - just because someone believes something - even if they are contemporaneous or even an eye witness - doesn't mean it is true.

So effectively your argument boils down to - people believed in the resurrection. Well, no shit Sherlock, I think we already knew that. But equally others didn't believe in it. And in terms of the dominant view amongst people in the place and at the time of the purported resurrection it appears that most people didn't believe that Jesus was the messiah and presumably also didn't believe in the resurrection as it is hard to see how you could believe in the resurrection and not become a christian.

So back to the drawing board Vlad. Come back when you have an argument that is remotely convincing.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm minded of the words of Jonathan Sacks who said If Christianity were true it would be true even if there weren't any adherents.

But equally if Christianity isn't true then it would still not be true even if everyone in the world was an adherent.

The veracity of a claim and belief in a claim are entirely different matters. The truth requires evidence not just belief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - wrong again. The earliest copies of the epistles are from hundreds of years after the purported resurrection, so all we can say for sure is that at that point we have evidence that people believed it - that's hardly hold the front page news is it

Extant copies of these epistles are found far earlier than  histories of the time which are accepted by Historians 

I find your notion that Christianity appeared around 150 AD to 200 AD needs a fair bit of back up... No Christians before this time? hmm interesting. It is far more probable that the epistles which after all are internal memos rather than histories were doing the rounds far earlier. It's possible for a History to lie around unseen for centuries. There is a whole host of patristic literature testifying to the apostles and their message. All of this has to have as you suggest appear/be written centuries later for your thesis to hold.

[jeremyp]

They don’t fail though the best answer, from the epistles is that people within living memory genuinely believed in a resurrection. The objections are rooted in it being unbelievable in a philosophically naturalist context.

Once that is clear, we all know where we stand.

It's ironic isn't though that one of the most famous and earliest of the epistles is Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. In this letter, written to the Church in Corinth, Paul argues quite strenuously for the resurrection of Christ. Why do you suppose he needed to do that? Does it not seem like evidence that there were some in the Christian church of Corinth that did not believe in the physical Resurrection?

It seems to me like 1 Corinthians is good evidence that there was uncertainty in the early Christian Church surrounding the resurrection and whether it really happened in the way that most Christians today believe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But equally if Christianity isn't true then it would still not be true even if everyone in the world was an adherent

Yes I'm sure that is so. However I put that in to demonstrate to the school of ''religions are basically all the same and a religious person would frankly be satisfied with any old shit'' forum representatives Prof Davey and B Hillside, that that isn't so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's ironic isn't though that one of the most famous and earliest of the epistles is Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. In this letter, written to the Church in Corinth, Paul argues quite strenuously for the resurrection of Christ. Why do you suppose he needed to do that? Does it not seem like evidence that there were some in the Christian church of Corinth that did not believe in the physical Resurrection?

I cannot fault this and have in the past used it to argue against the idea that the first century was an age of Gullibility.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes I'm sure that is so. However I put that in to demonstrate to the school of ''religions are basically all the same and a religious person would frankly be satisfied with any old shit'' forum representatives Prof Davey and B Hillside, that that isn't so.

Religions are "basically all the same" inasmuch as they rely on faith rather than reason to justify their various claims, and you would be satisfied with "any old shit" (as indeed you are) provide the story had sufficient emotional appeal (which the story to which you happen to be most enculturated does have). QED

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Me:

Historicity entails naturalistic methods of verification. Your problem if you want to junk that is that you have no other method with which to replace it, and so you must also junk it for any other ancient miracle claim (which is when you always run way).

You:

An lo! truly does blue have the power of prophecy say I...

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

Religions are "basically all the same" inasmuch as they rely on faith rather than reason to justify their various claims, and you would be satisfied with "any old shit" (as indeed you are) provide the story had sufficient emotional appeal (which the story to which you happen to be most enculturated does have). QED

That's not unique to religions. To take an example in current 'non religion', the idea punted by some Trans Rights Activists that transwomen are women or TWAW for short is  faith mantra.

[ProfessorDavey]

It seems to me like 1 Corinthians is good evidence that there was uncertainty in the early Christian Church surrounding the resurrection and whether it really happened in the way that most Christians today believe.

I think we have very little evidence so help us understand what early Christians did believe. And I doubt they were in any way a homogenous group in terms of belief. The notion of the heretics supports this, and that isn't even from the earliest period.

Now one thing which is commonly accepted is that many, or at least some, early Christians saw their belief as the equivalence of a 'doomsday' cult. Effectively that the end of the world was coming really soon and only believers in Jesus got to come out it well as Jesus was coming back within their lifetime. Now if Jesus was coming back very soon (in a few years) then the notion of the resurrection is kind of superfluous - why would he need to die, to then be reborn, to then kind of die again, to then kind of come back again - all within a few years.

So for those people the resurrection could easily have been the return of Jesus from the dead (i.e. the second coming). Now of course when it became clear that there was no sign of a returning Jesus the embarrassment could be readily dealt with by the notion of an earlier resurrection, immediately post death.

So I can see an early christian argument between the 'resurrection as second coming' and 'resurrection as immediate return from dead, followed by second coming'.

Of course we have no evidence for any of these purported events and precious little evidence for the actual beliefs of the various factions of early christians. We only really know what happened once an orthodox view developed within the 'winners' of the debate amongst early christians several hundred years after the death of Jesus.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

That's not unique to religions. To take an example in current 'non religion', the idea punted by some Trans Rights Activists that transwomen are women or TWAW for short is  faith mantra.

I agree that it's certainly not unique to religions. Not by a long way. Not sure about the trans issue though - presumably they don't argue that, say, transwomen should have the right to a hysterectomy do they?   

[SteveH]

One interesting aspect of eye-witness testimony concerns road traffic accidents. Many people say, and believe, that they saw the accident, but in fact in many cases they heard the crash, and immediately turned round, and subconsciously made assumptions about what happened from the positions of the vehicles.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Religions are "basically all the same" inasmuch as they rely on faith rather than reason to justify their various claims, and you would be satisfied with "any old shit"

Out and out gruff gammonism. Which, as the fourth ''Alf Garnett of the apocalypse'' Richard Dawkins shows us by example, is where New Atheism ends up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Out and out gruff gammonism. Which, as the fourth ''Alf Garnett of the apocalypse'' Richard Dawkins shows us by example, is where New Atheism ends up.

Do you have an argument to make?